If there is value on the rest from activemq 5. I would rather bring that one to artemis instead of keeping the one we had.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 8:12 PM Tetreault, Lucas <tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote: > > Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the > beginning of this thread? > No, probably not all the same reasons but it seems to me that there is > some value in keeping the two brokers in sync. Especially since some of the > arguments in support of removing it are "I don't believe much in rest from > JMS due to the session and stateful nature" and "any time someone ask > questions we just mention don't use it... (favoring stomp instead)" which I > think would apply equally to "Classic". > > > As far as I understand, REST from ActiveMQ Classis it´s working. My two > cents is that the usage of the https://activemq.apache.org/rest should be > analyzed before voting for deprecation. > How can we analyze usage? Anecdotally, Amazon MQ does not support REST on > our managed brokers and we've never had anyone ask for it to be enabled. > Just a datapoint, not saying we should make decisions based on that. > > - Lucas > > On 2022-09-12, 2:58 PM, "Cesar Hernandez" <cesargu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do > not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and > know the content is safe. > > > > > > > Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? > > > Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the > beginning > of this thread? > As far as I understand, REST from ActiveMQ Classis it´s working. My > two > cents is that the usage of the https://activemq.apache.org/rest > should be > analyzed before voting for deprecation. > > > El lun, 12 sept 2022 a las 14:59, Tetreault, Lucas > (<tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid>) escribió: > > > Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? I think the > same > > arguments apply about it being abandonware, etc. > > > > We could deprecate it in the upcoming 5.18.0 release and use this as > > incentive to cut a 6.0.0 release? __ That would be exciting! > > > > - Lucas > > > > On 2022-09-12, 7:41 AM, "Clebert Suconic" <clebert.suco...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. > Do > > not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the > sender and > > know the content is safe. > > > > > > > > I will go ahead and remove it... > > > > > > I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal. > > > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic > > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now > > > > > > I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection. > > > > > > > > > Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly > > don’t see many options to keep it. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell < > > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more > of > > chance > > >> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at > <date> > > if > > >> noone objects' :) > > >> > > >> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic < > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > I will go ahead and remove it... > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to > the > > session > > >> > and stateful nature. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather > > bring the > > >> > servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and > this > > >> > module has to go for sure. > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell < > > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires > > various user > > >> > > hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested > in > > doing....I > > >> > > think removing it makes sense. > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic < > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in > Artemis > > has been > > >> > > > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest > > interface is > > >> > > > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but > it's not > > >> > > > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just > > mention don't > > >> > > > use it... (favoring stomp instead). > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > As part of new logging changes, we are moving > > activemq-artemis into 3.0... > > >> > > > > > >> > > > At this point I see no other choice than remove the > module. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Any objections? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > Clebert Suconic > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > -- > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > -- > Atentamente: > César Hernández. > > -- Clebert Suconic
